ZALAMEDA VS.

PEOPLE

FACTS:
This is a petition for review of CA decision affirming the decision of RTC founding Gilbert Zalameda (petitioner) guilty
of violating Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), sentencing
him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years, as maximum. The trial court likewise found the petitioner and his co-accused Albert Villaflor
(Villaflor) guilty of violating Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, and sentenced them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment for four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years and seven (7) months, as maximum.]

PROSECUTION:
1. At around 5:15 a.m. of September 14, 2003, SPO4 Mignelito Orbeta, the desk officer of Precinct 1, Makati City,
received a phone call from a concerned citizen regarding an on-going "pot session" at 2725 D. Gomez St.,
Barangay Tejeros, Makati City.
2. Acting on this information, SPO4 Orbeta dispatched PO2 Faustino De Guia (PO2 De Guia), PO2 Renato De
Guzman, (PO2 De Guzman),PO2 Gonzalo Acnam, PO1 Donie Tidang (PO1 Tidang), and one Major Ancheta to D.
Gomez St., Barangay Tejeros to verify the report. They were in uniform.
3. They reached their intended destination at 5:25 a.m. and found the door of the house slightly open.
4. PO2 De Guzman peeped inside and saw the petitioner and Villa􀁀or sniffing smoke while sitting on a bed.
5. Having entered the house, they saw Villafor holding a tooter at that point, which he threw away.
6. Having noticed resistance on the part of the accused, they frisked the petitioner and Villafor in accordance with
police procedure, and recovered from the petitioner's right pocket a rectangular plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substances.
7. The police likewise found on top of the bed aluminum foils (later confirmed to have traces of shabu), three (3)
plastic sachets containing traces of white crystalline substance, a pair of scissors, a disposable lighter, a bag with
a plastic zipper, and an improvised tooter.
8. The police handcuffed the petitioner and Villafor, informed them of their rights and their violation of R.A. No.
9165, and brought them to the police station.
9. At the police station, PO2 De Guzman marked the confiscated items, and turned them and the suspects to SPO4
Arsenio Mangulabnan (SPO4 Mangulabnan), who prepared a request for laboratory examination
10. Immediately after, the seized items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for analysis and examination.
11. Police Inspector Karen S. Palacios (Police Inspector Palacios), Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, conducted an examination on the specimens submitted, and found them to be positive for the
presence of shabu.
12. Urine tests conducted on the petitioner and Villaflor also yielded a positive result.

DEFENSE:
1. Friends with Gilbert’s sister, Julie, Villaflor went to Tejeros to borrow money from Gilbert and Julie’s mother for
the baptism of the Julie’s daughter the next day.
2. The mother already asleep, Gilbert invited Villaflor to stay at his house.
3. At around 11:47 p.m. of September 13, 2003 four men in civilian clothes barged into his house on D. Gomez
Street.
4. The door at that time was closed but not locked. These men ordered them to stand, and then handcuffed them.
5. PO2 De Guzman frisked him and found P100.00 in his pocket.
6. PO1 Tidang then conducted a search on the room.
7. Afterwards, the police brought them to Precinct 1 where they were detained.
8. At the police station, the police asked them whether they had money to give in exchange for their liberty (i.e.
"pang-areglo").

RTC: found Gilbert Zalameda (petitioner) guilty of violating Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum. The trial court
likewise found the petitioner and his co-accused Albert Villaflor (Villaflor) guilty of violating Section 12 of R.A. No.
9165, and sentenced them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for four (4) months and one (1) day,
as minimum, to two (2) years and seven (7) months, as maximum.]

CA: affirmed the decision of the RTC

CURRENT PETITION: petitioner alleges that the items confiscated from him were inadmissible, and that the
prosecution failed to prove the existence of the illegal drug.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
1. The petitioner alleges that since the warrantless arrest conducted by the police was illegal, the items seized
from him as a result of said arrest were inadmissible.
2. The petitioner argues that the informant was never presented in court to corroborate the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.
3. The petitioner alleges that the prosecution failed to establish the evidence's chain of custody because the police
operatives failed to strictly comply with Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165. He adds that the police did not
immediately mark, photograph and inventory the drugs and drug paraphernalia at the place where they were
seized

RULING: Petition was denied for lack of merit.

1. The prosecution duly established the elements of the crimes charged
a. All elements of Section 11, illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) possession by the accused of an item
or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and
conscious possession of the drug by the accused, were met.
b. Likewise, the elements of Section 12, illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus
or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law, were also
met.

2. The arrest of the accused was legal

a. Accused were caught in flagrante delicto. Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: a) When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; b)
When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and c) When the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
b. Two requisites of in flagrante delicto concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
c. the series of events that led the police to the petitioner's house and to his arrest were triggered by a "tip"
from a concerned citizen that a "pot session" was in progress at the petitioner's house located on D. Gomez
Street. Under the circumstances, the police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant
considering the "time element" involved in the process (i.e., a pot session may not be for an extended
period of time and it was then 5:15 a.m.). In view of the urgency, SPO4 Orbeta immediately dispatched his
men to proceed to the identified place — 2725 D. Gomez Street — to verify the report. At the place, the
responding police officers verified from a slightly opened door and saw the petitioner and Villaflor "sniffing
smoke" to use the words of PO2 De Guzman, or "sumisinghot ng shabu" as PO2 De Guia put it. There was
therefore sufficient probable cause for the police officers to believe that the petitioner and Villaflor were
then and there committing a crime. As it turned out, the petitioner indeed possessed a prohibited drug and,
together with Villaflor, was even using a prohibited drug and likewise illegally possessed drug paraphernalia,
 contrary to law. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not only authorized
but are duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

3. The items seized from the acused were admissible as they stem from a valid arrest
a. Sec. 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.
b. In the case of other items confiscated on top of the bed of the accused, the plain view doctrine was applied.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer who has a right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. This doctrine applies
when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of
the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
c. All the foregoing requirements for a lawful search and seizure are present in this case. The police officers
had prior justification to be at the petitioner's place as they were dispatched by their desk officer; they
arrested the petitioner and Villa􀁀or as they had reason to believe that they were illegally using and
possessing a prohibited drug and drug paraphernalia. The search of the petitioner incident to his arrest
yielded the confiscated crystalline substance which later proved to be shabu. In the course of their lawful
intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia scattered on the bed. As these items were
plainly visible, the police officers were justified in seizing them.

4. Non-necessity of presentation of informants

a. The settled rule, as held in People vs. Boco, is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case
is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony
would be merely corroborative and cumulative. Moreover, informants are usually not presented in court
because of the need to hide their identities and preserve their invaluable service to the police.

5. The Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the Examined and Presented Seized Items were maintained
a. The petitioner did not contest the admissibility of the seized items during trial. The integrity and the
evidentiary value of the drug seized from the petitioner were therefore duly proven not to have been
compromised.
b. We also reject the petitioner's claim that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist was fatal to the
prosecution's case. The petitioner never raised in issue before the trial court the non-presentation of Police
Inspector Palacios. In fact, the defense during the pre-trial agreed to dispense with her testimony.
c. Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21 (1), Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from
him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
d. In the present case, we see substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody
and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized evidence was not
compromised.
e. We refer particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the
seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no objection to
admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence
seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals decision and resolution dated March 18, 2008 and July 15,
2008, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No. 30061 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 03-
3560, petitioner Gilbert Zalameda is SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1)
day, as minimum, to two (2) years and seven (7) months, as maximum.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE (Art. 128)

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for papers
or other effects
3. That he commits any of the following acts:
1. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof
2. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner
3. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave the same

GR:
There must be a valid warrant of arrest or search before entry

ER:
1. Waiver of right
2. Section 13, Rule 126
3. Searches on moving vessels
4. Stop and frisk
5. Plain View Doctrine
6. Doctrine of Exigent Circumstance

Life Imprisonment vs. Death Penalty

1. As to application: for life imprisonment - special law; for Death Penalty – RPC
2. As to duration: life imprisonment – not definite; Death Penalty – 20 to 40 years
3. As to accessory penalties: life imprisonment – none; Death Penalty – have
4. As to pardon: life imprisonment – none specified; Death Penalty – can apply after 30 years